ELR Citation: ELR 20796
No(s). 83-2145 (5th Cir. Sep 17, 1984)

The court holds that it erred in using the arbitrary and capricious standard of review to evaluate the discussion of alternatives in an environmental impact statement (EIS). The court denies a petition for rehearing en banc, but corrects its earlier statement of the standard of review. The use of the arbitrary and capricious standard by the court conflicts with the "hard look" standard annunciated by the Supreme Court. The court deletes the offending sentence from its earlier opinion, 14 ELR 20650, and inserts replacement language applying a reasonableness standard to agency limitations on the scope of the alternatives discussed in an EIS.

Counsel are listed at 14 ELR 20650.

Before TATE, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.